Let's review Umpire's scholarly response from last evening. He notes that the 1787 Convention was called and resulted in a complete rewrite of the Articles of Confederation. I take that to mean that he believes there were 18th century umpires pleading with their contemporaries to stop this thing in its tracks because the Articles were functioning well and any changes were unnecessary and dangerous. Hmmmm....
As you know, the Articles of Confederation were not working. The country was dysfunctional, so much so that Congress called the Convention for the express purpose of a rewrite. The 1787 draft was consented to by its delegates and forwarded by the Continental Congress to the states. Ratification was largely complete by September 1788. Interestingly, umpire's ancestors kept North Carolina from ratifying the new constitution till May 1790.
I think most folk would agree that the Constitution has been a huge success. Its existence is testimony that change should be considered and can be embraced. When it needs attention we amend it. The process works. If umpire had his way we'd still operate under the Articles of Confederation. I don't think anyone wants to go back to that failed policy of the past.
Umpire, you're still an idiot. Now you're idiotic in three centuries.
But, so that you may save face, why don't you list some of the rules you seem to know so much about. I'm sure you can't, since there are none, cause there has never been such a convention.
You're still an idiot.
Don't expect an intelligent response. He has no intention to discuss anything. His only aim is to derail every thread with name calling, diversion and just trying to shout everyone down.
The historical record is very clear that the majority of attendees of the 1787 convention never had any intention to amend the Articles of Confederation. Instead, they intended, from the beginning, to draft a new constitution. To compare that situation to the current one is to display a complete lack of perspective, or more likely a willful desire to distort what is happening.
IN THE SUMMER OF 1787, A CONVENTION WAS CALLED TO AMEND THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. THEY REWROTE THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION. THERE IS NOTHING TO STOP THEM FROM DOING IT NOW.
DO YOU REALLY WANT THE TED CRUZ'S AND RAND PAUL'S OF THIS COUNTRY DOING THAT?
MAYBE YOU SHOULD RESEARCH ON HOW A CONVENTION IS TO BE CONVENED, THE RULES ON HOW IT IS TO OPERATE, THE SUBJECT OF SAID CONVENTION AND WHO THE PARTICIPANTS SHOULD BE.
It makes no difference whether 2/3 of the House and Senate or 2/3 of the state legislatures apply and the subsequent convention proposes an amendment. 3/4 of the states have to ratify any amendment. That is a monumentally high bar and it will protect from frivolous changes. Neither liberal nor conservative has anything to fear.
Umpire, I read from the document itself and I quote
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Umpire, you know that any amendment proposed by such a convention still has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. The process works slowly and deliberately. The likelihood of messing things up is remote.
Our government is operating in substantial compliance with the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Thus, the government has a plausible claim that it is currently obeying the Constitution.
Conservatives generally believe that the Supreme Court was wrong in saying that Obamacare was constitutionally authorized by the General Welfare Clause, but a Supreme Court majority held it to be so. This decision was horrible if we use originalism as our standard, but was only a slight extension of past Supreme Court precedent. Thus, it is not outlandish for the government to claim that Obamacare is indeed constitutional under the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
So, if we are going to really fix the problems with our government, we must restrain all branches of federal power. In fact, the most important checks of all may well be those related to constraints on judicial power.
from the same link i have provided earlier.
and has no one asked who the people are that organizing this? i can't find any real names
Win a dream trip to Italy! Glide through Venice, sip wine in Tuscany, or explore ancient Rome, experience the magic of Italy. Enter by 7/13/25 for your chance to win a Globus Italian tour for 2!
